Ron Paul Predicts: 'Going To Be Defacto Secession Movement'...

[paulitician]

Once again, the Good Doctor is Spot On.


Ron Paul: “Good News” That Secession Is Happening

Former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul says secession is happening and it’s “good news.” Paul later predicted the states would stop listening to federal laws.

 

[gipper]

Great speech. He is exactly right...as usual.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul? No!
RuPaul? Yes!
He's fabulous!

 

[jwoodie]

Ron Paul is right on this subject. We should never have gone to popular election of U.S. Senators, since this undermines the basic concept that they should represent their States. Now they are elected with national special interest money. States need to start challenging federal authority, especially in the areas of executive orders and administrative rules and regulations. The Constitution never envisioned this usurpation of State sovereignty.

 

[g5000]

Anyone care to encapsulate Ron Paul's speech so the rest of us don't have to endure a 35 minute video of him?

WTF is a "defacto secession"? Is that...like...you give the finger to a passing police car and then chortle that you just had yourself a "defacto secession"?

 

[Skylar]

Anyone care to encapsulate Ron Paul's speech so the rest of us don't have to endure a 35 minute video of him?

WTF is a "defacto secession"? Is that...like...you give the finger to a passing police car and then chortle that you just had yourself a "defacto secession"?

States ignoring federal laws. Or federal rulings.

Paul *so* has a hard on for stripping US citizens of federal protections and rights, and then throwing the issue back to the States. Where the states can then criminalize behavior that is a constitutional right today.

Its a sadly common dream among conservatives.

 

[BluesLegend]

The federal government has become corrupted...by politicians, its becoming more corrupt with each passing day and will not last.

Look at House representatives, in some states they are selected by and controlled by the Dem or Rep establishment not the voters, the election is a sham because the candidate and election results are guaranteed via gerrymandering. For those House representatives who are actually chosen by the people what happens to them when they get to Washington? Yes they are threatened into doing what they are told by the establishment party. Do what we say or else you get no committee assignments and we'll fund another candidate to run against you in your next primary.

 

[Skylar]

The federal government has become corrupted...by politicians, its becoming more corrupt with each passing day and will not last.

Look at House representatives, in some states they are selected by and controlled by the Dem or Rep establishment not the voters, the election is a sham because the candidate and election results are guaranteed via gerrymandering. For those House representatives who are actually chosen by the people what happens to them when they get to Washington? Yes they are threatened into doing what they are told by the establishment party. Do what we say or else you get no committee assignments and we'll fund another candidate to run against you in your next primary.

You do realize that at the State level, about 1 in 4 state reps ran unopposed, right? If guarantees seats translates into corruption, then state legislatures are corrupt as fuck.

 

[BluesLegend]

The federal government has become corrupted...by politicians, its becoming more corrupt with each passing day and will not last.

Look at House representatives, in some states they are selected by and controlled by the Dem or Rep establishment not the voters, the election is a sham because the candidate and election results are guaranteed via gerrymandering. For those House representatives who are actually chosen by the people what happens to them when they get to Washington? Yes they are threatened into doing what they are told by the establishment party. Do what we say or else you get no committee assignments and we'll fund another candidate to run against you in your next primary.

You do realize that at the State level, about 1 in 4 state reps ran unopposed, right? If guarantees seats translates into corruption, then state legislatures are corrupt as fuck.

Dude, state government is corrupt as all hell. I remember the sting on State reps I believe it was in Colorado, a couple three dozen of them were sent to prison for taking bribes and corruption. I seem to recall it was 60 Minutes who aired some of the under cover footage. One higher ranking rep was selling a block of Yes votes on some state bill, he said "I'm in this for me I don't give a shit about the people".

 

[paulitician]

Ron Paul is right on this subject. We should never have gone to popular election of U.S. Senators, since this undermines the basic concept that they should represent their States. Now they are elected with national special interest money. States need to start challenging federal authority, especially in the areas of executive orders and administrative rules and regulations. The Constitution never envisioned this usurpation of State sovereignty.

Spot On. Thanks.

 

[Borillar]

Ron Paul is right on this subject. We should never have gone to popular election of U.S. Senators, since this undermines the basic concept that they should represent their States. Now they are elected with national special interest money. States need to start challenging federal authority, especially in the areas of executive orders and administrative rules and regulations. The Constitution never envisioned this usurpation of State sovereignty.

Spot On. Thanks.

How does direct election of senators undermine the basic concept that they should represent their States? If they were appointed, they would simply be party apparatchiks of whichever party happened to be in power in the state at the time. At least election gives the people some voice in who represents them.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ron Paul is right on this subject. We should never have gone to popular election of U.S. Senators, since this undermines the basic concept that they should represent their States. Now they are elected with national special interest money. States need to start challenging federal authority, especially in the areas of executive orders and administrative rules and regulations. The Constitution never envisioned this usurpation of State sovereignty.

Spot On. Thanks.

How does direct election of senators undermine the basic concept that they should represent their States? If they were appointed, they would simply be party apparatchiks of whichever party happened to be in power in the state at the time. At least election gives the people some voice in who represents them.

That's why we have the House of "Representatives". The ratifiers had a healthy fear of too much democracy so they balanced one house elected by mob rule with another elected directly by the states so that the government wouldn't be run only by special interests like it is today.

Ron Paul is right.

 

[Borillar]

Ron Paul is right on this subject. We should never have gone to popular election of U.S. Senators, since this undermines the basic concept that they should represent their States. Now they are elected with national special interest money. States need to start challenging federal authority, especially in the areas of executive orders and administrative rules and regulations. The Constitution never envisioned this usurpation of State sovereignty.

Spot On. Thanks.

How does direct election of senators undermine the basic concept that they should represent their States? If they were appointed, they would simply be party apparatchiks of whichever party happened to be in power in the state at the time. At least election gives the people some voice in who represents them.

That's why we have the House of "Representatives". The ratifiers had a healthy fear of too much democracy so they balanced one house elected by mob rule with another elected directly by the states so that the government wouldn't be run only by special interests like it is today.

Ron Paul is right.

So republicans are afraid of too much democracy? Fair and free elections by the state's populace = mob rule? Political appointment of senators by ruling party would eliminate special interests? How? Sounds like rule by plutocracy.

 

[gipper]

Ron Paul is right on this subject. We should never have gone to popular election of U.S. Senators, since this undermines the basic concept that they should represent their States. Now they are elected with national special interest money. States need to start challenging federal authority, especially in the areas of executive orders and administrative rules and regulations. The Constitution never envisioned this usurpation of State sovereignty.

Spot On. Thanks.

How does direct election of senators undermine the basic concept that they should represent their States? If they were appointed, they would simply be party apparatchiks of whichever party happened to be in power in the state at the time. At least election gives the people some voice in who represents them.

That's why we have the House of "Representatives". The ratifiers had a healthy fear of too much democracy so they balanced one house elected by mob rule with another elected directly by the states so that the government wouldn't be run only by special interests like it is today.

Ron Paul is right.

So republicans are afraid of too much democracy? Fair and free elections by the state's populace = mob rule? Political appointment of senators by ruling party would eliminate special interests? How? Sounds like rule by plutocracy.

No. We have a plutocracy now.

The Founders thought allowing state legislators the election of senators, would force allegiance to their state. They did not think the people competent enough to make the right choice, which certainly has born out to be true. Would it have made a huge difference? No, but it would be better then what we have today.

And too much democracy never works and is easily perverted. Much of the public is clueless. Allowing them to vote on all sorts of things, is clearly not effective. They are not informed and are easily duped by powerful interests.

 

[RKMBrown]

Anyone care to encapsulate Ron Paul's speech so the rest of us don't have to endure a 35 minute video of him?

WTF is a "defacto secession"? Is that...like...you give the finger to a passing police car and then chortle that you just had yourself a "defacto secession"?

States ignoring federal laws. Or federal rulings.

Paul *so* has a hard on for stripping US citizens of federal protections and rights, and then throwing the issue back to the States. Where the states can then criminalize behavior that is a constitutional right today.

Its a sadly common dream among conservatives.

You're a moron and a liar.

 

[natstew]

Ron Paul is right on this subject. We should never have gone to popular election of U.S. Senators, since this undermines the basic concept that they should represent their States. Now they are elected with national special interest money. States need to start challenging federal authority, especially in the areas of executive orders and administrative rules and regulations. The Constitution never envisioned this usurpation of State sovereignty.

Spot On. Thanks.

How does direct election of senators undermine the basic concept that they should represent their States? If they were appointed, they would simply be party apparatchiks of whichever party happened to be in power in the state at the time. At least election gives the people some voice in who represents them.

The Senators were originally intended to represent the State Governments in the U.S. Congress, being ELECTED by, (not appointed by) the State Representatives, they represent the people who elected the State Reps.

The total corruption in the Democrat Party is verifies the truth of this statement by a Founding Father: "This Constitution will only work for a religious and moral People."
The Democrat Party is not democratic is no way shape or form, they vote in lockstep with their dear leader of are not re-elected.

 

[natstew]

The House Of Representatives used to be called, +"The Peoples House, for a reason, it represented the PEOPLE. The Senate represented the State Governments.
POLITICAL PARTIES were not taken into consideration when the Constitution was written.
George Washington warned us about Political Parties taking over our Country:

 

[Contumacious]

Ron Paul is right on this subject. We should never have gone to popular election of U.S. Senators, since this undermines the basic concept that they should represent their States. Now they are elected with national special interest money. States need to start challenging federal authority, especially in the areas of executive orders and administrative rules and regulations. The Constitution never envisioned this usurpation of State sovereignty.

Spot On. Thanks.

How does direct election of senators undermine the basic concept that they should represent their States? If they were appointed, they would simply be party apparatchiks of whichever party happened to be in power in the state at the time. At least election gives the people some voice in who represents them.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
By Thomas DiLorenzo

May 17, 2005


This was the original design of the founding fathers; U.S. senators were not directly elected by the voting public until 1914. Thus, S.J. Res. 35 proposes a return to founding principles and is therefore a most revolutionary idea. A good overview of the history of the Seventeenth Amendment is Ralph A. Rossum’s book, Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. Rossum correctly points out that the system of federalism or "divided sovereignty" that the founding fathers created with the Constitution was never intended to be enforced by the Supreme Court alone. Congress, the president, and most importantly, the citizens of the states, were also to have an equal say on constitutional matters."

.

 

[occupied]

 

[paperview]

Nothing says love for your country more than wanting it to break apart.